Which case, the morality of abortion access shouldn't be your concern because it's subjective in your opinion, it's merely a matter of perspective. Both people who believe in abortion and are against abortion should be equally valid under your perspective.
The rule generally holds, because the vast majority of people are religious, and those who are irreligious are more susceptible to amoral realism, which allows for an easier justification of abortion.
To understand you completely, are you saying you personally believe animals have no rights? Which case there is no contradiction and that you're good. However if animals are entitled to any rights whatsoever, then some intellectual justification is needed.
As for the fetus, honestly that's irrelevant to your position. If it's not a person, who cares if it suffers or feels extreme pain being left outside the womb to shrivel and die, it has no rights in your moral framework.
Why should we care about the fetus's capacity for pain, brain activity, or heartbeat if it doesn't have rights?
i mean this is a java mafia site and you're defending pro-life (which is a misnomer in itself) ideals. i don't think i need intellectual honesty.
but, we kill animals regularly. we put them down when they're ill, we do it when there's over population, we do it sometimes because we just don't want them anymore.
we also hunt them, which undoubtedly causes a lot of distress in certain situations, such as a non-kill shot, or a fox hunt, or catching something like a dolphin in a net, or losing a hook in a fish that escapes.
as to your other point, cool. we've established that women have rights to their bodies, and can remove the fetus if they like. we haven't given them the right to kill the fetus though.
but, since a fetus won't survive outside the body before it reaches ~6 months, and ~8 months without extreme measures, we can also agree that it's going to die once removed, yes? in which case, because you think that fetuses either have brain activity, can feel pain, or have a heartbeat, or all of the above, you're also going to agree that pulling a fetus out (morally good because woman's autonomy) will be a torturous death for the fetus, which will feel the suffering (morally bad - causing pain), so isn't the humane thing to do to give it the quick death with the abortion pill?
Technically no one does, however that argument only specifically justifies removing the fetus from the body, it does not justify terminating it. Once it is no longer in the woman's body, the argument for bodily autonomy strictly is null and void, because the fetus is no longer infringing on the woman's rights.
Before you respond to this, if you have any shred of intellectual honesty I'd like you to address my earlier contentions on how you justify animal rights if they aren't persons in your ethical framework.
i don't need to familiarize myself with philosophy when i can just say you're a knob if you think that it's ok to force a woman to sacrifice 9 months of her life then go through a tonne of pain just to give away a baby she didn't want and only happened by accident
I've already presented this argument to Edark, and you can go back and reread but I'll try to condense it because you don't seem to have the patience.
Your premises would logically lead you to believe that animals don't have rights and therefor can be abused and killed without regard because they lack personhood, unless you develop a separate criteria for describing cognitive functions, then you fall into the trap of allowing the mentally disabled and comatose.
This has literally been the problem in the ethics of personhood, trying to capture a definition of personhood that doesn't lead to a contradiction in ethical frames between Animal Rights and Abortion, which is why most people who dedicate their lives to studying one of these topics generally study the other.
Peter Singer (who's ethical theory is listed in the poll) also contributes on animal rights and is a vegan. These issues are literally intertwined and currently no theory exists that allows you to Justify all three goals,
1. Preventing people from being declared people due to accident, injury, or circumstance of birth. 2. Securing animal rights 3. Justifying abortion access.
You have to pick two, which is why Peter Singer and Mary Warren both abandon the first, leading to their conclusions about the rights of the comatose, mentally/physically/developmentally challenged.
I highly recommend you familiarize yourself with the literature on the subject rather than just insulting people and creating arbitrary standards of justification in order to secure your sense of morality from grounded objections.
Sure. You going to tell me that all life matters, because unless you're vegan and don't kill ants and mosquitoes, you're a hypocrite.
@Linxe, a comatose person has an illness/disability. A fetus doesn't. An infant doesn't.
But the difference between an infant and a fetus is if I try to bottle feed an infant, it will be fine because its organs are sufficiently developed to survive. A 6 month fetus isn't.
